6 ms·

> news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago Haven't either ads or paywalls/subscriptions always been the primary way that news companies

> news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago Haven't either ads or paywalls/subscriptions always been the primary way that news companies paid for journalists/sysadmins/servers, etc? What was the funding source 'not that many years ago' if not ads or paywalls/subscriptions? > Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good Is arguing such a thing "well and good"? I'm not complaining, but my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from will pay their costs (as they said ads and paywalls/subscriptions were out) got downvoted - I'm not even sure that goes as far as arguing that people should help pay for content that they want to receive.

ImPostingOnHN 25d ago
> my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from In most cases, I am not particular about which site I read a syndicated government quote on, so "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case. The use case is more "If I search for information, and a site shows up in the results claiming to have it, but when I am baited in, the content switches to an advertisement which I cannot bypass without paying: then I do not want that site to show up in my search results anymore".
- no-name-here 25d ago
  1. Doesn't that just bring us back to the questions that were explicitly raised in the parent/GP comments, such as if you don't want paywalls or subscriptions, then does that mean that you strongly prefer viewing ads (so that the servers, people, etc get paid)? 2. "read a syndicated government quote" - actually, maybe this is the more important thing - I would strongly recommend that you change your news sources so that you are not solely consuming just whatever the government says - instead, switch to news sites that actually employ (and pay) real journalists, editors, etc to not just report what the government is saying, but also to report on the majority of news that the government isn't talking about, and even if it's a topic that the government talks about, to also report what's happening on the ground, to compare government actions to historical precedents, etc etc etc. There are even sites out there that will evaluate a wide variety of news sources based on everything from right/left leaning, to reliability. If you need any help finding some, please let me know. 3. > "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case If I can't convince you to switch your sources to sources that employee real journalists, editors, etc (instead of simply regurgitating government claims), then I guess the accurate description for your case in particular would "sites that you want to just hear government claims repeated from"? (Although I do hope that I can convince you to switch away from your current use case.)

ImPostingOnHN 25d ago

> my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from In most cases, I am not particular about which site I read a syndicated government quote on, so "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case. The use case is more "If I search for information, and a site shows up in the results claiming to have it, but when I am baited in, the content switches to an advertisement which I cannot bypass without paying: then I do not want that site to show up in my search results anymore".

no-name-here 25d ago
1. Doesn't that just bring us back to the questions that were explicitly raised in the parent/GP comments, such as if you don't want paywalls or subscriptions, then does that mean that you strongly prefer viewing ads (so that the servers, people, etc get paid)? 2. "read a syndicated government quote" - actually, maybe this is the more important thing - I would strongly recommend that you change your news sources so that you are not solely consuming just whatever the government says - instead, switch to news sites that actually employ (and pay) real journalists, editors, etc to not just report what the government is saying, but also to report on the majority of news that the government isn't talking about, and even if it's a topic that the government talks about, to also report what's happening on the ground, to compare government actions to historical precedents, etc etc etc. There are even sites out there that will evaluate a wide variety of news sources based on everything from right/left leaning, to reliability. If you need any help finding some, please let me know. 3. > "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case If I can't convince you to switch your sources to sources that employee real journalists, editors, etc (instead of simply regurgitating government claims), then I guess the accurate description for your case in particular would "sites that you want to just hear government claims repeated from"? (Although I do hope that I can convince you to switch away from your current use case.)